Horsham land authority talks of former station

With a pair of votes Jan. 15, the Horsham Land Redevelopment Authority made some progress toward negotiating transfer of ownership of land that was once part of the former Willow Grove Naval Air Station and finding a party to oversee development of the site.

The Naval Air Station-Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove was closed in September 2011, pursuant to the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Act. Horsham Township created HLRA to implement a redevelopment plan that a consultant had prepared for 862 acres of land on the former base that the Navy had designated as surplus.

According to the HLRA’s website, the redevelopment plan envisioned repurposing the site to include residential areas, office parks, a hotel and conference center, a town center with retail and other uses, a public school, aviation museum, and parks and open space. Under the plan, the property is to be transferred from the Navy to the authority through an Economic Development Conveyance. Negotiations about the terms of the transfer are to proceed while the Navy conducts an environmental review of the redevelopment plan.

“Ownership of the property cannot occur until after completion of the Environmental Impact Statement,” the website explained.

Advertisement

Michael McGee, the HLRA’s executive director, noted at the authority’s board meeting that the Navy had recently published and released for comment the draft EIS. Public meetings that were “reasonably well attended” had been held over the preceding two days, he added.

McGee said it appeared that, for much of the public, there was some confusion about what the EIS was. Such a study was a normal part of a major development and “covers a gamut of things,” he explained.

“It’s a very comprehensive study,” McGee said. He credited the Navy consultant and its team with preparing one of the better EISs that he had seen.

Nonetheless, McGee added that there were “appropriate” comments to be made about the study, and he suggested that the board might want to take the opportunity to ask some questions.

At McGee’s request, Gregory Preston, director of the Navy’s BRAC Program Management Office East, offered a review of some highlights of the EIS.

Preston noted that the previous days’ meetings about the EIS had drawn about 90 people, which he called “a pretty good representation.”

While declining to address specific questions asked at the public meetings, Preston said they were typical of the process. He identified the major categories of issues raised as relating to the timing of development on the site, concerns about possible impacts such as traffic, and location of ground control for remotely piloted drone aircraft at the Horsham Air Guard Base.

Preston said his sense was that most people left the two sessions “generally satisfied.” He added that the Navy would continue to accept comments on the EIS until Feb. 10. The next step would be to review the comments, prepare responses and produce a final EIS, which should take until May or June, he added.

“It’s a long, costly process,” Preston said.

He indicated that the EIS identified three alternatives for the future of the former base: the preferred plan put forward by the authority, a modified version with “more intensive housing,” and the continued use of the site as an airbase.

McGee added that another possibility included in the EIS would be to do nothing with site but allow it to decay, which he said would be an undesirable course of action that would result in an “eyesore.”

One remark he made about the EIS was that the alternative it included for continuing to use the site as an airbase relied on the year 2010 as a baseline for comparisons. But by that period of time, the military was on “stand down,” McGee said, and so “the only comment I would make is they picked the wrong year.” If an earlier year in which there was more activity on the base had been selected, the authority’s redevelopment plan would have looked better, he added.

While declining to address McGee’s specific question, Preston said the point he raised was “certainly a valid comment” that would be considered as part of “the overall process.”

McGee also pointed out that the EIS relied on the redevelopment plan’s projection of a 20-year build-out on the site. Given the depth of the recession, he added, development will take longer, “unless the economy changes.”

Another point McGee raised was that the EIS did not address the timing for the Navy to make a finding of suitability for transfer of the base property.

Preston said his hope was that such a finding for the first transfer, in the area of the runway, would be made by the end of the year. He added that he “can’t unequivocally give you a deadline” for transferring other portions of the base, which would need to wait until environmental issues were addressed.

“The science drives it,” Preston said.

McGee joined board member William Donnelly in pointing out that the problem with transferring the middle of the base first was that there would be a lack of roadways to provide access.

“We as a team have to address that issue,” McGee said.

Nonetheless, he characterized the EIS as a “ringing endorsement” of the authority’s proposed redevelopment plan. Board Chairman W. William Whiteside similarly said he was pleased to see the EIS posed no “glaring” issues for the redevelopment plan.

Turning to the EDC application, McGee described it as a “real estate negotiation process.” By federal statute, he added, the application was required to include a redevelopment plan and identify its economic impact.

McGee said negotiations with the Navy would continue until such time that an agreement was presented to the HLRA board for approval. He asked the board to authorize the EDC application to be submitted the Navy by the end of the month. A motion made by Donnelly passed on a 4-0 vote, with board Vice Chairwoman Joanna Furia absent.

The board next voted in favor of authorizing the authority to seek statements of qualification from master development teams for the base project. Prior to the vote, McGee explained that the idea would be to come up with a list of prospective parties, from which the authority would narrow down the selection to a “short list.”